Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -
but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

This is a good summary of what is also happening here: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

You're making shit up again.

This is a good summary of what is also happening here: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth. Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to
Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth. Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to

Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:14:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

So you have no cite = you made it up.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

So nothing to do with working for *families* then? Just as I thought, you are making shit up.

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

It is not abuse you fucking cretin. You are making shit up as shown above.

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

What has the Walmart story in the US got to do with the NZ taxpayers alliance? NOTHING.

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Your contributions are a mixture of ill-informed confusion and made-up shit. Not much to address other than shoot it down. Done.

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth.

Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to
Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

Stop lying. Unemployment has been declining since end of 2009 - the end of the GFC. Australia are running a massive deficit. They really do envy our economy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:38:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:14:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

So you have no cite = you made it up.

Get a life JohnO - you can look up the original announcements from
when WFF was introduced.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

So nothing to do with working for *families* then? Just as I thought, you are making shit up.

Everything to do with Working for Families - "tweaking" of WFF is what
this is all about!

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

It is not abuse you fucking cretin. You are making shit up as shown above. Again you appear to be blinding repeating what others have said of

yourself . . .

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

What has the Walmart story in the US got to do with the NZ taxpayers alliance?

NOTHING.
The benefits Walmart are getting in America have a very very close
counterpart in the benefits all employers of low wage employees are
getting from Working for Families - are you happy with the government
using taxation revenue to subside low wages?

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Your contributions are a mixture of ill-informed confusion and made-up shit. Not much to address other than shoot it down. Done.

You do appear to be done, without succesfully addressing the issue . .
. why are we not surprised . . . Get some advice from your handler
JohnO - you may be better just saying nothing than the silly responses
you are giving.

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth. Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to

Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

Stop lying. Unemployment has been declining since end of 2009 - the end of the

GFC. Australia are running a massive deficit. They really do envy our economy.

There are 40,000 more unemployed than when National took over in 2008
. . .

Look up the extent of the accumulated deficit from 8 years of the
national-led governments . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 22:40:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:38:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:14:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

So you have no cite = you made it up.

Get a life JohnO - you can look up the original announcements from
when WFF was introduced.

Classic Dickbot: make some shit up, then ask someone else to prove it. You say it was temporary, so you can fucking back it up!

Except you can't because you made it up.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

So nothing to do with working for *families* then? Just as I thought, you

are making shit up.

Everything to do with Working for Families - "tweaking" of WFF is what
this is all about!

We don't know that. The details have not been released.

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

It is not abuse you fucking cretin. You are making shit up as shown above. Again you appear to be blinding repeating what others have said of

yourself . . .

Even by your low standards, Dickbot, that is a piss weak retort.

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

What has the Walmart story in the US got to do with the NZ taxpayers

alliance? NOTHING.

The benefits Walmart are getting in America have a very very close counterpart in the benefits all employers of low wage employees are
getting from Working for Families - are you happy with the government
using taxation revenue to subside low wages?

Low wage earners get the benefits, not the employers. Even a slow-witted child would grasp this.

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Your contributions are a mixture of ill-informed confusion and made-up shit.

Not much to address other than shoot it down. Done.

You do appear to be done, without succesfully addressing the issue . .
. why are we not surprised . . . Get some advice from your handler
JohnO - you may be better just saying nothing than the silly responses
you are giving.

LOL, "handler". This coming from the North Korean style propagandist Dickbot who pollutes this n.g. with hundreds of poitically motivated National obsessed posts a month!

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election >> >> - they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity >> >> for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader

growth. Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

Stop lying. Unemployment has been declining since end of 2009 - the end of

the GFC. Australia are running a massive deficit. They really do envy our economy.

There are 40,000 more unemployed than when National took over in 2008

National took over as Labour handed them the unfolding GFC (along with a "decade of deficits"). Labour enjoyed a world wide boom, and grew the public service into a bloat.

. . .

Look up the extent of the accumulated deficit from 8 years of the national-led governments . . .

See: GFC and earthquakes. All ridden through and the Nats are admired and envied by governments around the world for the way they've done it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 15/12/2016 1:19 p.m., JohnO wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

You're making shit up again.

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth.

Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to
Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

Poor widdle Rich having another stupid attack I see. Guess he's been
checking the Xmas sherry out to excess again.

Pooh

p.s. Not a personal attack Rich. Just a reasonable assumption of your
standard behaviour.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 15/12/2016 10:40 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:38:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:14:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

So you have no cite = you made it up.

Get a life JohnO - you can look up the original announcements from
when WFF was introduced.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

So nothing to do with working for *families* then? Just as I thought, you are making shit up.

Everything to do with Working for Families - "tweaking" of WFF is what
this is all about!

So you now think WFF should be done away with do you Rich. Funny but
from memory you were a vociferous supporter of this legislation which
only ever created MORE beneficiary's while not actually helping anyone
who needed it!

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

It is not abuse you fucking cretin. You are making shit up as shown above.

Again you appear to be blinding repeating what others have said of
yourself . . .

Bullshit! The only one who's ever accused JohnO of lying is YOU Rich. Or
do you suffer from multiple personality disorder and are not a creation
f the Labour caucus as previously suggested?

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

What has the Walmart story in the US got to do with the NZ taxpayers alliance? NOTHING.

The benefits Walmart are getting in America have a very very close counterpart in the benefits all employers of low wage employees are
getting from Working for Families - are you happy with the government
using taxation revenue to subside low wages?

You ARE pissed again!

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Your contributions are a mixture of ill-informed confusion and made-up shit.

Not much to address other than shoot it down. Done.

You do appear to be done, without succesfully addressing the issue . .
. why are we not surprised . . . Get some advice from your handler
JohnO - you may be better just saying nothing than the silly responses
you are giving.

The silly...nay stupid responses are all yours as usual Rich.

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election >>>>> - they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity >>>>> for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth.

Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to
Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

Stop lying. Unemployment has been declining since end of 2009 - the end of the GFC. Australia are running a massive deficit. They really do envy our economy.

There are 40,000 more unemployed than when National took over in 2008
. . .

BULLSHIT!

Look up the extent of the accumulated deficit from 8 years of the national-led governments . . .

Who are paying for nine years of Labours profligate spending,
unaffordable legislation and growing of the public service Rich.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 15/12/2016 6:14 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 13:08:20 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -

Really? Please cite to support this "temporary" assertion?

It goes back to when it was introduced by Labour.

Yup. Was another never ending election bribe from Labour that brought
them another term while actually achieving nothing for those that really
needed it Rich. Typical of your draconian, hypocritical Labour party.

but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

Really? How? Cite to support.

National claimed not to like the policy when it was introduced, but
have retained it since 2008. Key said they are going to provide more
support for low income earners, and English confirmed it wa being
considered.

Typical weird cite from you Rich. Remember your word meaning nothing in
this ng. It has something to do with your lying and avoidance of
reasoned discussion.

You're making shit up again.

That is what you say, but I guess personal abuse is easier than
serious discussion and argument..

So you make shit up to try and support the shit you made up Rich.
Typical of the lying marxist muppet you are.

This is a good summary of what is also happening here:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Why would they fight something happening in the USA?

What part of "is also happening here" do you not understand?

Why should middle income taxpayers need to subsidise employers not
prepared to pay a living wage?

How is WFF supporting employers? They get other subsidies to stay in
business after Labour killed youth rates (and raised youth unemployment
rates as a result). BTW nice to see you finally post something relevant
to the heading.

Dare you actually address the subject of the thread, JohnO?

Nope. That's you ducking and diving as usual Rich.

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

We've done better than catch up. We're ahead. Stronger and broader growth. Lower unemployment. That's why NZ has gone from a massive population outflow to

Australia under Labour to an inflow under National.

What crap - our earnings now lag even further behind Australia, and we
have not reduced our unemployment. This is a promise that National
failed to deliver.

Only according to your glorious Liebor party and you Rich. And we all
know what a lying pack of marxist muppets you both are.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 15/12/2016 1:08 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

Working for Families was only supposed to be a temporary provision -
but National love it so much they have kept it for 8 years, and are
planning on extending it!

This is a good summary of what is also happening here: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155422617347908/

Where is the taxpayer union fighting this rort?

Catching up with Australia? That only lasted until after the election
- they know that a reasonable minimum wage leads to greater prosperity
for businesses as well as workers . . .

and leads to inflation - like a cat chasing its tail.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)